The goal of the political left is to get us addicted to the government. They want Americans to become dependent on government for our very survival. That's how the left secures votes and acquires power. Once the left gets you addicted to it's government crack, it's difficult to live without it, and you will keep voting for leftists to keep the crack gravy train running. In order to accomplish their goal, leftists promise Americans all sorts of "free" things (which are never free). From free birth control to lower student loan interest rates, along with whatever other panders of the the week the Obama administration will dream up between now and election day, the government doesn't have the ability to give you anything for free. All the government can do is give something to one person by taking it away from another person. This is known as theft, but leftists like to call it "redistribution of wealth", because it sounds a bit less criminal.

Fortunately for the left, our Constitution gives them an avenue to steal a person's money and give it to someone else, because under the Constitution, Congress has the power to tax. Our Founding Fathers never intended the powers of taxation to be used in such a manner, which is why the original Constitution mandated that all taxes must be apportioned equally. That was a big hurdle the left had to overcome. It's a lot harder to pander to people and convince them they need the government's free stuff when those very same people have to pay for the stuff. In that case, the people realize they can buy the stuff themselves without any intervention from the government, and the leftist con doesn't work. The seminal moment in the rise of the American left came in 1913, when the 16th Amendment was passed. It read, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Voila !!! Now taxation could be applied UNEQUALLY, and the left could rob Peter to pay Paul. Let the pandering begin.

In 1913, the original federal income tax bottom rate was 1% on income up to $20,000, and the top rate was 7% on income over $500,000. Nobody would be complaining about those tax rates today, but the leftists needed a lot more theft to reach their goals of an America dependent on the government (dependent on the left). To be more accurate, what the left actually envisions is an America where ALMOST everybody is dependent on the government. That's what they mean when they talk about being in the 99%. Those not in the 99% are supposed to pay for all the government niceties the left wants to give the rest of us. It's a ridiculous notion, but the left has been fairly successful in selling this logical fallacy to an unknowing nation.

Today, the federal income tax bottom rate is 10% on income up to $17,000 (though deductions generally reduce this tax burden to zero), and the highest rate is 35% on income over $379,150. The left is outraged today that they can only steal a maximum of 35% of a person's income via federal tax. Of course, when you add up all other taxes, someone making $400,000 is probably giving half his income to the government, but the leftists don't talk about that part.

Leftists believe the government must provide everything a person can't afford for himself, and should that same person eventually becomes able to afford things for himself, leftists will take away the lion's share of his money, putting him back in the former category. Leftists call this "fairness", though what's fair about being robbed and having your freedom taken away is beyond me.

What is insidious about the philosophy of the left is it's affect on the character of the people it claims to be helping. When the forced charity of the left is complete, and a person is getting free housing, free food, free health care, a monthly stipend, free education, free utilities, etc., and is basically relieved of all normal adult human responsibilities, why would that person bother to work, contribute to society, or better himself ? He is already set up. What happens to the character of that person ? Such a person often becomes the very adult child the left treated him like he was in the first place. As for the people who do work hard to become successful, only to have the fruits of their labors taken away and redistributed by leftists, how do you think they feel ? Pissed off is how they feel. They begin to question why they should work hard for the benefit of some slacker who won't get off his couch.

The perverse philosophy of the leftists succeeds when enough voters become dependent on the government to swing the government forever in favor of the left. That's why the Obama administration has taken step after step to increase the government's hold over the people and increase dependence on government. That's why Obama started the largest new welfare program since Medicare with ObamaCare. Obama may be incompetent and wildly irresponsible (see: $5 trillion in new federal debt in three years), but he's not stupid. He know this is the biggest opportunity the leftists have ever had, because dependence on government is higher now than ever before. This is their moment, and they don't want to 'let a crisis go to waste'. It may even be a fait accompli. This election will tell the tale. We are at a crossroads as a country.

As the old quote often attributed to Alexander Tytler goes, "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largesse out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

President Obama is engaging in loose fiscal policy (understatement) to buy votes with the largesse of the public treasury…and he appears to be getting away with it.

Congressman Jim McGovern, a Democrat from the People's Republic Of Massachusetts, has put forth a groovy new progressive amendment to the Constitution, one that will deal with a persistent probelm in America and an ongoing problem for left-wingers everywhere - freedom of speech. It's called the People's Rights Amendment (PRA), and who wouldn't favor something that has the words "People's Rights" right there in it's name ? It must be REALLY groovy, kids, and it's pushback against the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling.

When President Obama and the Democrats were pushing the Dodd-Frank legislation in 2010, Obama pledged the legislation would insure that "never again will the American taxpayer be held hostage by a bank that is 'Too Big To Fail'".

The above comes from Barack Obama's website. Obama and friends claim "Mitt Romney and his special-interest allies are going to spend the next seven months trying to deny, downplay, or hide these facts from voters."

Rep. Alan West (R-FL) created a mini-uproar a couple days ago. When asked how many members of Congress were card-carrying Marxists, West responded, "I believe there's about 78 to 81 members of the Democratic Party that are members of the Communist Party. They actually don't hide it. It's called the Congressional Progressive Caucus." Needless to say, the Congressional

So take that, Alan West. The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) members are NOT Communists...they just associate with and are allied with Communists. I'm glad we cleared that up. Btw, CPC member Maxine Waters (D-CA) just called and said she would nationalize the blogosphere unless I stopped engaging in McCarthyism (though she pronounced it "McCartneyism". I thought she was referring to my being a Beatles fan). This is in line with Mrs. Waters' previous desires to nationalize banks and oil companies, not to mention that the CPC wants to nationalize health care. But at least they're not Communists.

“Paycheck discrimination hurts families who lose out on badly needed income, and with so many families depending on women’s wages, it hurts the American economy as a whole.” - President Obama July 2010.

President Obama is making the Buffett Rule a centerpiece of his re-election campaign, even though it would do almost nothing to reign in our annual trillion dollar plus deficits. Ironically, this nation never had a trillion dollar deficit in any year in which Obama was not the President. The White House conveniently leaves that part out of it's re-election message. Here's how the White House frames the issue:

The following chart shows the federal deficit with the Buffet Rule in place, and without the Buffet Rule in place. Remember this the next time you hear Obama using the Buffett Rule to confuse people with his disingenuous misdirections:

President Obama gave a speech yesterday attacking Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI) budget plan, which has passed the House. He termed Ryan's plan (which has been endorsed by Romney), "social darwinism", and a "trojan horse". Obama's speech was designed to frighten the dickens out of the American people. It was so full of hysterical accusations and scare tactics that it read like parody. After reading Obama's speech, I was going to expose all Obama's divisive deceptions and straw man tactics, but then I read Ryan's short rebuttal to Obama's speech:

Barely a day goes by anymore when I'm not stunned by the words coming out of President Obama's mouth. Here's his latest, on the Supreme Court's consideration of ObamaCare, which 26 states have contended is unconstitutional.